Skip to content

Russell v. Kœhler

William A. Russell v. Balthaser Kœhler

Russell v. Kœhler, 66 Ill. 459 (1872)

Court: Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: September 15, 1872
Judges: Thornton
Citations: 66 Ill. 459

Cited by 10

Syllabus

1. Bailment-degree of care required of baiZee. A bailee taking a car. riage to repair for pay, is only held to the exercise of ordinary care, as the contract in such case is one of mutual benefit, and where such car. riage is destroyed by a fire which no ordinary prudence could guard against or prevent, the bailee will not be responsible for the loss, even though he was detaining the same for indebtedness of the owner to him. 2. Ordinary care defined. Ordinary care is such care as a person of ordinary caution would exercise in regard to the property. 3. Bailee&emdash;when possession by will be presumed to be assented to by owner. Where the bailee of a carriage, taken to be repaired, claimed the right to retain its possession as security for an indebtedness of the owner to him, and while in his possession it was destroyed by fire, without fault on the part of the bailee, it was held, that as the owner could have regained possession by tendering the amount due for repairing, and failed to do so, the jury had the right to presume that the continued possession of the bailee was with the consent of the owner, and consequently the latter could not recover for the loss.

Summary

Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. William A. Porter, Judge, presiding.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Thornton

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mr. Justice Thornton delivered the opinion of the Court:

The defendant claimed, as a set-off to the notes and account sued on, the value of his carriage, which had been entrusted to plaintiff for repairs, and was destroyed by the fire which prevailed in Chicago in October, 1871.

The bailee took the carriage to repair, and as the contract was one of mutual benefit, only ordinary care was required of him. This is defined to be such care as a person of ordinary caution would exercise in regard to the property. Ko ordinary prudence could guard against or prevent the destruction of property during a calamity so fearful as the fire in Chicago in October, 1871.

As to the existence of any special agreement to repair the carriage in a specified time, the testimony is extremely conflicting. There is evidence to sustain the verdict, and there is no sufficient ground to set it aside.

Even if true, that the plaintiff said he would retain the possession of the carriage as security for the defendant’s indebtedness to him, this, would not make the plaintiff liable for the loss. The defendant, upon demand and tender of any expense incurred in repairing, could have regained the possession. When the carriage was permitted to remain with the manufacturer, the jury had the right to presume that the continued possession with the bailee was with the consent of the owner.

We are of opinion that the verdict was right, and affirm the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Estate of Ramsay v. People ex rel. Southern Illinois Penitentiary64 N.E. 549 (Ill. 1902)
Clemenson v. Whitney238 Ill. App. 308 (1925)
Schumacher v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.69 N.E. 825 (Ill. 1904)
Standard Brewery v. Bemis & Curtis Malting Co.49 N.E. 507 (Ill. 1898)
Ford Motor Co. v. Osburn140 Ill. App. 633 (1908)
Standard Brewery v. Hales & Curtis Malting Co.70 Ill. App. 363 (1897)

Most recent

Clemenson v. Whitney238 Ill. App. 308 (1925)
Mansfield v. Shapiro234 Ill. App. 596 (1924)
A. C. Becken Co. v. Ottawa Pianophone Co.217 Ill. App. 49 (1920)
Ford Motor Co. v. Osburn140 Ill. App. 633 (1908)
Schumacher v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.69 N.E. 825 (Ill. 1904)
Chicago City Railway Co. v. Schuler111 Ill. App. 470 (1903)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.